Casualty Actuarial Society
Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar
Federal Income
Tax Issues
Richard Bromley
Foley & Lardner LLP
Moderator
Craig L. Pichette
Joseph F. Long
KPMG WNT
Internal Revenue Service
September 10, 2007
Agenda
• Unpaid Losses
• Tax Definition of Insurance/Reinsurance
2
Section 832(b)(5)
• A deduction is allowed for “losses
incurred” including “discounted unpaid
losses” as defined in I.R.C. section 846
• “Undiscounted unpaid losses” means
“…the unpaid losses shown in the annual
statement filed by the taxpayer…” (section
846(b)(1))
• Unpaid losses includes ULAE
3
Treas. Regs. Sec. 1.832-4
• (a)(5) In computing “losses incurred” the determination of unpaid
losses at the close of each year must represent actual unpaid losses
as nearly as it is possible to ascertain them.
• (b) Losses incurred. Every insurance company to which this
section applies must be prepared to establish to the satisfaction of
the district director that the part of the deduction for “losses incurred”
which represents unpaid losses at the close of the taxable year
comprises only actual unpaid losses…These losses must be stated
in amounts which, based upon the facts in each case and the
company's experience with similar cases, represent a fair and
reasonable estimate of the amount the company will be required to
pay. Amounts included in, or added to, the estimates of unpaid
losses which, in the opinion of the district director, are in excess of a
fair and reasonable estimate will be disallowed as a deduction…
4
Utah Medical
• Utah Medical Insurance Assn. v. Comm. TC
Memo 1998-458
• Monoline medical malpractice company
• Tillinghast prepared reserve estimates for years
at issue (1991-1992) using five methods and
complying with actuarial standards
• Unpaid losses were $45.6 M at 12/31/1991 and
$49.4 M at 12/31/1992
• IRS asserted gross undiscounted redundancies
of $13 M for 1991 and $19.3M for 1992
5
Utah Medical
• Court held for the taxpayer
• Taxpayer’s reserve was within the range,
although at the high end
• Need not use the midpoint of the range
• Need not choose the “best” estimate, only
a “fair and reasonable” estimate
6
Minnesota Lawyers
• Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Comm., TC Memo 2000-23
• Primarily wrote professional liability insurance for lawyers during
1993-1995
• Total reserves at EOY’s was approximately $11-12M
• 1993 actuary’s report had a best estimate of $7.8 M v. $11.6 M
booked by company
• 1994 and 1995 actuarial reports developed ranges and point
estimates. Carried reserves were at the high end of the ranges and
in excess of the point estimates.
• Company’s reserve methodology was based upon development of
case reserves with an additional bulk reserve for “adverse
development” of $3-4 M per year.
• IRS disallowed the adverse development reserve and a portion of
the case reserves
7
Minnesota Lawyers
• Court held for the IRS that “adverse
development” reserve was unreasonable
• Actuarial methods not used to develop the
reserve, only used to evaluate reserves for
statutory certification
• Court allowed deduction for highest point
estimate determined by an actuary
8
Physicians Insurance
• Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, TC Memo 2001304
• Medical malpractice writer in Wisconsin
• Tillinghast estimated reserves using five actuarial
methods
• Company used reserves approximately 10 percent
higher than Tillinghast’s point estimates for years at
issue (1993-1994)
• Audit firm held that company’s reserve were reasonable
because of lack of historical experience
• IRS disallowed approximately 40 percent of the reserves
on audit
9
Physicians Insurance
• Court disallowed the 10 percent excess of
company reserves over Tillinghast point
estimate
• 10 percent excess “not actuarial in nature”
• IRS’s criticism of Tillinghast calculations
was not compelling
10
TAM 200115002
• “National Office position for the deduction of ‘losses
incurred’”
• Taxpayer is not required to use the “most accurate
estimate”, only a “fair and reasonable” estimate
• Taxpayer’s estimate will be considered “fair and
reasonable” if it is estimated on the basis of a recognized
methodology that is appropriate for the particular line of
business, is in accordance with actuarial standards, and
takes into account prior experience.
• Use of hindsight to test reasonableness is inappropriate
11
SSAP 55
• 9. Various analytical techniques can be used to estimate
the liability for IBNR claims, future development on
reported losses/claims, and loss/claim adjustment
expenses. These techniques generally consist of
statistical analysis of historical experience and are
commonly referred to as loss reserve projections…The
decision to use a particular projection method and the
results obtained from that method shall be evaluated by
considering the inherent assumptions underlying the
method and the appropriateness of those assumptions to
the circumstances. No single projection method is
inherently better than any other in all circumstances.
The results of more than one method should be
considered.
12
SSAP 55
•
10. For each line of business and for all lines of business in the aggregate,
management shall record its best estimate of its liabilities for unpaid claims,
unpaid losses, and loss/claim adjustment expenses. Because the ultimate
settlement of claims is subject to future events, no single claim or loss and
loss/claim adjustment reserve can be considered accurate with certainty.
Management’s analysis of the reasonableness of claim or loss and
loss/claim adjustment expense reserve estimates shall include an analysis
of the amount of variability in the estimate. If, for a particular line of
business, management develops its estimate considering a range of claim
or loss and loss/claim adjustment expense reserve estimates bounded by a
high and a low estimate, management’s best estimate of the liability within
that range shall be recorded. The high and low ends of the range shall not
correspond to an absolute best-and-worst case scenario of ultimate
settlements because such estimates may be the result of unlikely
assumptions. Management’s range shall be realistic and, therefore, shall
not include the set of all possible outcomes but only those outcomes that
are considered reasonable.
13
SSAP 55
• 12. In the rare circumstance when, for a particular line of business,
after considering the relative probability of the points within
management’s estimated range, it is determined that no point within
management’s estimate of the range is a better estimate than any
other point, the midpoint within management’s estimate of the range
shall be accrued. It is anticipated that using the midpoint in the
range will be applicable only when there is a continuous range of
possible values, and no amount within that range is any more
probable than any other…This guidance is not applicable when
there are several point estimates which have been determined as
equally possible values, but those point estimates do not constitute
a range. If there are several point estimates with equal probabilities,
management should determine its best estimate of the liability.
14
ASOP 36
• 3.3.2(c) Determination of Redundant or
Excessive Provision-When the stated
reserve amount is greater than the
maximum amount that the actuary
believes is reasonable, the actuary should
issue a statement of actuarial opinion that
the stated reserve amount does not make
a reasonable provision for the liabilities
associated with the specified reserves.
15
ASOP 36
• 4.6(e)-If the actuary determines that the
stated reserve amount is redundant or
excessive, the actuary should disclose the
amount by which the stated reserve
amount exceeds the maximum amount
that the actuary believes is reasonable.
16
SOX 404
• Documentation of procedures around
methodology for determination of reserve
amounts
• Documentation of controls around the
determination of the reserve amount
17
Current Environment
• Deference to actuarial computations v.
management determinations
• Hindsight
• Importance of ranges
• SSAP 55 requirements
• Documentation and control environment
• Actuarial standards
18
Current Environment
• Relatively few adjustments on exam
– Cycle of underreserving?
– Taxpayer friendly court decisions?
– Better documentation and controls?
– Appeals Conference experience?
• Current IRS exam approach
– Use of actuaries
– Audit techniques
19
Definition of
Insurance/Reinsurance
20
FAS 113
•
Indemnification of the ceding enterprise against loss or liability
relating to insurance risk in reinsurance of short duration contracts
requires both of the following:
– The reinsurer assumes significant insurance risk
– It is reasonably possible that the reinsurer may realize a
significant loss from the transaction
21
FAS 113
Risk transfer testing must include:
1. A thorough understanding of contract provisions,
2. A model of the incidence of cash flows between parties,
3. A single, appropriate discount rate, and
4. Insurance risk only
22
FAS 113
Precluded from consideration are:
1. Income taxes
2. Reinsurer expenses
3. Brokerage
4. Credit risk
23
SSAP 62
•
•
•
9. The essential ingredient of a reinsurance contract is the transfer of risk.
The essential element of every true reinsurance agreement is the
undertaking by the reinsurer to indemnify the ceding entity, i.e. reinsured
entity, not only in form, but in fact, against loss or liability by reason of the
original issuance…
10. Insurance risk involves uncertainties about both (a) the ultimate amount
of net cash flows from premiums, commissions, claims, and claim
settlement expenses (underwriting risk) and (b) the timing of the receipt and
payment of those cash flows (timing risk). Actual or imputed investment
returns are not an element of insurance risk. Insurance risk is fortuitous-the
possibility of adverse events occurring is outside the control of the insured.
12. Indemnification of the ceding entity against loss or liability relating to
insurance risk in reinsurance requires both the following:
– A) The reinsurer assumes significant insurance risk under the reinsured portions
of the underlying insurance agreements; and
– B) It is reasonably possible that the reinsurer may realize a significant loss from
the transaction.
24
Traditional Tax Definition of Insurance
• U.S. Supreme Court’s definition in LeGierse case
– Risk shifting
– Risk distribution
• Insurance Risk
• Commonly accepted notion of insurance
25
Traditional Tax Definition of Insurance
• But, Sears case may provide a different
framework for analysis
– “[B]ut it is a blunder to treat a phrase in an opinion as
if it were statutory language . . . . The [Supreme]
Court was not writing a definition [of insurance] for all
seasons . . .”
– “Corporations . . . do not insure to protect their wealth
and future income, as natural persons do . . . .
Instead, corporations insure to spread the costs of
casualties over time.”
– “A corporation thus buys loss-evaluation and lossadministration services, which insurers have a
comparative advantage, more than it buys loss
distribution.”
26
Traditional Tax Definition of Insurance
– “If retrospectively-rated policies . . . are
insurance for tax purposes -- [as IRS counsel
conceded for purposes of the case] -- then it
is impossible to see how risk shifting can be a
sine qua non of ‘insurance.’”
– “[I]nsurance does not shift risk so much as the
pooling transforms and diminishes risk.”
– Recognized by both issuers and regulators as
insurance
27
Notice 2005-49
• Rev Rul 2001-31
• Rev Rul 2005-40
• Request comments on the qualification of
additional arrangements as insurance
– Cell captive arrangements
– Loan-backs of premiums
– The relevance of homogeneity
– Involving finite risk
28
Revenue Ruling 89-96
• Is an insurance company entitled to claim a deduction for ‘losses
incurred’ during the taxable year on retroactive insurance
contracts?
• Losses expected in excess of $130 million
• Liability coverage totaled $30 million
• Insured paid $50 million premium for $100 million retroactive
coverage
• Does not involve requisite risk shifting
• Catastrophe has already occurred
• Absence of risk apart from investment risk
– Make payments of known loss earlier than expected
– Investment yield will lower than expected
29
Nuclear Decommissioning Costs
• ILM 200629028, 200629029, 200703007
• Nuclear decommissioning costs:
– time: when do operations at the plant cease;
– extent of actual contamination;
– changes in regulatory requirements for decommissioning (e.g.,
standards and procedures);
– the economic conditions at the time of decommissioning (e.g.,
the cost of labor and supplies).
• Industry experience provides sufficient data to build
reliable models of the timing and amount of such costs
• The aggregate amount of liability was capped
• The risk must contemplate the fortuitous occurrence of a
stated contingency
30
Revenue Ruling 2007-47
Nuclear power plant clean up cost ruling
• It is certain that costs will be incurred in the future
• Up to a contract limit
• Economically a prefunding of future obligations
• Insurance company assumed the risk of:
– Scope of required measures
– Projections of future labor and material costs
– Likely time frame when cost would be incurred
– Projections of future earnings.
• Not fortuitous
Would they reach the same conclusion if no cap?
31
Revenue Ruling 2007-47 (cont)
• IRS took unusual step in this ruling.
• Stated the revenue ruling does not apply to:
– Reinsurance arrangements (including retroactive
reinsurance, such as loss portfolio transfers)
– Arrangements covering unanticipated environmental
exposures
– Arrangements covering unanticipated cost overruns
– Arrangements involving product warranties.
• Requested comments concerning need for
guidance in these and other areas.
• Left open the possibility of applying same
authorities to these other arrangements.
32
LTR 200711017
•
•
Reinsurance from sub to parent
Loss portfolio transfer
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
100% quota share of prior year losses (including IBNR)
Lines of business included environmental
Reinsurance premium equal to statutory reserves
Aggregate limit in excess of statutory reserves
Notional account in case of commutation
Agreement met SSAP 62 requirements for treatment as reinsurance
Statutory accounting as prospective reinsurance since between related parties
Ruling
– LPT is not reinsurance because “the element of fortuity is absent because the
Agreement serves only to finance Taxpayer’s present obligation for incurred
losses.”
– Not insurance in the commonly accepted sense because the arrangement could
not be entered into with an unrelated third party
•
Stat/tax conformity issues: “Taxpayer should make any necessary
reconciliation between the reserve amount shown on subsequent annual
statements and the amount properly allowable under section 832(b)(5).”
33
LAFA 20072502F
•
Taxpayer is the assuming company on a reinsurance contract transferring prior year
losses. Agreement was treated as transferring risk for purposes of SSAP 62, and,
although not indicated in the ruling, presumably for FAS 113.
•
IRS indicated that Rev. Rul. 89-96 requires a comparison of the net present value
(NPV) of anticipated losses with the premium paid for the insurance. Only if the NPV
exceeds the premium, including tax savings, is insurance risk transferred.
PVL > PVP
•
The taxpayer entered into a retroactive reinsurance contract and in its underwriting
file put forth five cash flow scenarios. The Service computed the NPVs for those
scenarios and found that three of them failed to satisfy Rev. Rul. 89-96 even before
tax savings were considered, while the other two failed after tax savings were taken
into account.
IRS also ruled that SSAP 62 is “not controlling” for federal income tax purposes.
“While an arrangement that fails the risk transfer requirements of SSAP 62 is almost
certain to fail the risk transfer requirements for federal income tax purposes,
satisfying SSAP 62 is not guarantee of success for federal income tax purposes.”
•
34
Critique of Rulings
• The apparent lack of a principled approach leads to
uncertainty, inconsistency, and “making it up as you go
along”
• Why the disregard of statutory accounting rules and
definitions? They establish a framework for analysis of
the issue acceptable to the insurance regulators.
– Elements of insurance risk
– Definition of fortuity
• Why the focus on definition of insurance e.g. fortuity
rulings, rather than on adequacy of risk transfer which is
the more traditional actuarial and accounting analytical
tool?
35
Questions
36